Where else but right-leaning TR and/or cable TV will you hear about things such as yet another tax on every cent you spend or receive or deposit or write a check for or invest or un-invest or charge to a credit card or pay on your car or home loan or ... get the picture?

Nancy Pelosi was sending out positive vibes at the end of last week ... positive, that is, if you like the idea of the Imperial Federal Government collect a 1% (initial) tax on all financial transactions ... any financial transaction at any financial institution.

You haven't heard about this? No surprise. There's an election coming you know. Democrats aren't fond of telegraphing their various tax schemes just before you go to the polls. My guess is that you'll hear plenty about this if the voters of this country somehow manage to leave the Democrats in power. Drudge did, however, run with a bit over the weekend wherein Nancy Pelosi indicated that the idea had merit. On December 4th of last year CNSnews.com ran with a story
( http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58099 )
detailing Pelosi's endorsement of a "global" tax on stock trades and other financial transactions that she said at a news conference could bring in $150 billion annually.

So ... just in case you're actually thinking of voting, maybe this explanation will help you make up your mind.

A financial transaction tax would most likely start out at around 1%. If you made a $500 deposit into your savings account, $5 would go to Washington. If your employer automatically deposited you $1,845 paycheck into your account every two weeks, $18.45 would go to the federal government. That's what happens when your money goes INTO your account? But what about when it comes OUT? Well, that's another financial transaction, isn't it? Charge a $80 dinner for two to your Visa card, 80 cents to the government. Let's say your car payment is $390 per month. Every time you make that payment $3.90 goes to the government. Over 36 months this would amount to $140. Now remember .. you already paid income tax on this money ... and here comes another 1% going in, and 1% coming out.

Mention this to a Democrat ... and they will surely tell you that you are crazy, that they would never consider something like this. But hold on a minute ... you need to know that this idea of a financial transaction tax is very popular right now in Europe. Some have even proposed such a tax as a way to support the United Nations, and I've already told you about Pelosi's love for the idea. So ... do you feel lucky? Go ahead! Put your favorite Democrat back into office. Then you can react with amazement a few months down the road when the Democrats - still in power thanks to your efforts --- announce that something like a temporary transaction is going to be necessary to take care of our deficit. The truth, of course, is that if they got the tax it would not be used to cover the deficit ... it would just be more money for them to spend on their various vote-buying schemes. Temporary? Yeah, right. The only thing about this financial transaction tax that would be temporary would be the rate. Again ... how long would it take them to tell you that they just "had" to raise the rate to 2%, but just for a while, mind you .. just for a while until whatever crisis our dear leaders in Washington were dealing with passed.

Are you beginning to see what the stakes are here four weeks from tomorrow? We're not playing some video game here folks. The threat is real, and if you aren't on the front lines to fight these people I promise you that your children and grandchildren will damn you for walking away from this battle.

On the radio, he expanded the discussion to explain that this does not violate Obama's promise not to raise income taxes because it's not an income tax ... it's a financial transaction tax. Never mind that it breaks O's promise not to raise ANY taxes one dime on people earning less than [the figure keeps dropping to insure that it hits most small businesses].

Neal also worries that a VAT may come up during the lame duck session.

And he claims --but I haven't tried to verify -- that hearings are already going on to consider taxation or even appropriation of our life's savings, possibly to be replaced with government IOUs at an interest rate TBD by the government. Yet these same clowns deny us even the OPTION of privatizing a mere 10% of our SS "investments", as Bush et.al. proposed AS AN OPTION.

Charge a $80 dinner for two to your Visa card, 80 cents to the government. Let's say your car payment is $390 per month. Every time you make that payment $3.90 goes to the government. Over 36 months this would amount to $140. Now remember .. you already paid income tax on this money ... and here comes another 1% going in, and 1% coming out.

You sound just like every other over privileged, selfish, whiney republican. You want it all, you just don't want to pay for it. This ain't a free ride pal. Do your homework._________________/w\

The TR cult is very disturbed about the ideas and opinions they are assigning to others right now. The hosts have been thinking up and assigning some really poor ideas lately
When it turns out not to happen they switch the opinions they are assigning and listeners just nod their heads.
If Bush had privatized any part of our money ,it would have been gone in the economic crash his policies caused.

We have, roughly speaking, about a trillion dollars to make up for the stimulus package and the bailout - so far. And, we have two wars on the books.

In the past, growth of the GDP has decreased this relative debt load from government spending during recessions (and war). This time, growth may be slower. Certainly, construction will not be the driving force it often times is after a recession.

On top of this, an aging population (read increased medical costs) and a potential crises looming in pension payouts (state, local, federal and SS), along with continued military expenditures in the mid-east mean real fiscal challenges.

So, our tax revenues may not (will not in my view) add up. This means we have to raise taxes or drastically cut spending or, as I believe, both.

Should a tax on transactions be on the table? I don't know, I have not seen this proposal to see how it would affect the average tax payer, how much revenue it would raise, and how it would be administered.

Gut reaction, is NO! It would be another tax and may add to the complexity of the tax revenue collection. Certainly, it should have a sunset provision.

These sort of taxes, I believe, are largely fantasy. Our current tax system is so entrenched in the way that government operates, that I don't see it going anywhere. But, should it?

Forget all these ideas. This is really how our government plans to pay for all this foolish spending. The same way Zimbabwe did. Print money.... That way we'll all be making a million dollars a day! Not quite enough for a happy meal though.

Forget all these ideas. This is really how our government plans to pay for all this foolish spending. The same way Zimbabwe did. Print money.... That way we'll all be making a million dollars a day! Not quite enough for a happy meal though.

Can you explain the almost total absence of inflation (apart from fuel and housing costs) in the US?

Those (like you?) who sit on a big mountain of cash don't like the idea of issuing currency; those who actually want jobs should probably be in favor of it._________________florian - ny22

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum